Breach of Duty

Breach of Duty is a fundamental concept in the law of torts, referring to the failure of a person to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable and prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances. It represents the second essential element in establishing negligence, following the existence of a legal duty of care and preceding the proof of damage caused by that breach.
When a person who owes a legal duty to another fails to perform that duty or performs it improperly, resulting in harm or loss to the latter, the person is said to have committed a breach of duty. The law imposes liability for such failure if the act or omission is unreasonable, careless, or in violation of a recognised legal standard.

Meaning and Legal Basis

A duty of care arises when the law recognises a relationship between two parties in which one is obliged to act with caution and consideration for the safety or rights of the other. A breach of that duty occurs when the person fails to meet the required level of care.
In simple terms, breach of duty means doing something which a reasonable person would not do or failing to do something which a reasonable person would do in a given situation.
This principle lies at the heart of negligence law and applies to a wide range of relationships — between doctor and patient, employer and employee, driver and pedestrian, manufacturer and consumer, among others.

Essential Elements of Breach of Duty

To prove a breach of duty, the plaintiff must establish the following key components:

1. Existence of a Duty of Care
   • The defendant owed a legal duty to act with reasonable care towards the plaintiff.
2. Standard of Care
   • The law prescribes an objective standard — that of a reasonable and prudent person.
3. Failure to Meet the Standard
   • The defendant’s act or omission fell below that standard of reasonable care.
4. Foreseeability of Harm
   • The harm suffered must have been reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the defendant’s conduct.

Only when these conditions are met can a breach of duty be legally recognised as negligence.

Standard of Care

The standard of care determines whether the defendant’s conduct amounted to a breach. It is an objective test, measured against what a hypothetical reasonable person would have done in the same situation.
Factors influencing the standard include:

• Probability of Harm – Greater risk requires greater care.
• Seriousness of Harm – More serious potential harm necessitates higher precaution.
• Burden of Taking Precautions – Practicality and cost of preventive measures are considered.
• Social Utility of Conduct – Activities serving social or public value may justify certain risks.

This balance between risk and precaution was famously described in Bolton v. Stone (1951), where the court held that a cricket club was not liable for injuries caused by a ball hit out of the ground on very rare occasions, as reasonable precautions had already been taken.

Determining Breach of Duty

Courts determine breach of duty by assessing:

1. Conduct vs. Standard – Comparing the defendant’s actions to what a reasonable person would have done.
2. Circumstances – Considering situational factors, including time, place, and nature of activity.
3. Expert Evidence – In specialised professions (medicine, engineering, etc.), expert testimony helps define the expected standard of care.
4. Previous Cases and Precedents – Judicial interpretations guide what constitutes reasonable care.

Judicial Tests for Breach of Duty

Several judicially recognised tests assist in identifying whether a breach has occurred:

• The Reasonable Man Test – Derived from Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856), where Baron Alderson defined negligence as “the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”
• The Foreseeability Test – The defendant is liable only if a reasonable person could have foreseen the harm. (Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932).
• The Probability and Gravity Test – Established in Bolton v. Stone (1951), balancing the likelihood and severity of harm against the burden of prevention.
• The Risk-Benefit Test – Balances the utility of the defendant’s conduct against the potential harm.
• The Professional Standard Test – In cases involving skilled professionals, such as doctors, the Bolam test applies: a professional is not negligent if acting in accordance with a responsible body of professional opinion (Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, 1957).

Examples of Breach of Duty

1. Medical Negligence
   • A surgeon leaves a surgical instrument inside a patient’s body, failing to observe standard medical procedures.
2. Traffic Accidents
   • A driver exceeding the speed limit and hitting a pedestrian is in breach of the duty to drive safely.
3. Manufacturer’s Liability
   • A company producing contaminated food products breaches its duty to ensure consumer safety.
4. Employer’s Negligence
   • Failure to provide protective equipment or safe working conditions for employees constitutes breach of duty.
5. Professional Negligence
   • An auditor failing to detect obvious financial irregularities in an audit report.

In all such cases, the defendant’s conduct falls below the expected level of care, amounting to a breach.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proving breach of duty lies on the plaintiff. The claimant must demonstrate:

• That the defendant owed a duty of care.
• That the defendant’s conduct breached that duty.
• That the breach caused foreseeable harm.

However, in certain cases, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) shifts the burden to the defendant. For example, if a surgical patient wakes up with burns unrelated to the operation, the court presumes negligence unless the defendant provides an explanation.

Case Laws on Breach of Duty

1. Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
   • Established the modern law of negligence. The manufacturer owed a duty to the ultimate consumer and breached it by allowing a snail to contaminate a bottle of ginger beer.
2. Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856)
   • Defined negligence and set the standard for breach of duty as failure to do what a reasonable man would do under similar circumstances.
3. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)
   • Held that a doctor is not negligent if acting in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion.
4. Vaughan v. Menlove (1837)
   • The defendant, ignoring warnings about a haystack’s fire risk, was held liable for failing to act as a reasonable person would have.
5. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1966)
   • The Supreme Court of India held the corporation liable when a clock tower collapsed due to poor maintenance — a clear breach of duty.
6. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005)
   • The Supreme Court reiterated that professionals are liable only when their conduct falls below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner.

Consequences of Breach of Duty

If a breach of duty is established and it results in damage, the defendant is liable to compensate the injured party. Remedies may include:

• Damages (monetary compensation)
• Injunctions (to prevent further harm)
• Specific performance or restitution (in exceptional cases)

Where no actual damage results, the breach may not be actionable unless it constitutes a violation of a legal right (injuria sine damnum).

Defences to Breach of Duty

A defendant may escape liability by proving:

• Contributory Negligence – The plaintiff also failed to exercise due care.
• Volenti non fit injuria – The plaintiff consented to the risk.
• Act of God or Inevitable Accident – The harm was caused by natural or unavoidable forces.
• Statutory Authority – The act was performed under lawful authority.

Significance

The doctrine of breach of duty serves several vital purposes in tort law:

• Defines Legal Accountability – Establishes clear standards of reasonable behaviour.
• Promotes Social Responsibility – Encourages individuals and organisations to act prudently.
• Protects Public Safety – Ensures that careless or reckless acts are legally redressed.
• Develops Common Law Principles – Through judicial interpretation and precedent.